1.1 [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). There is no evidence of the absence or presence of sub-points 1.1.1-4, as the text is incomplete.]

Full profile (Bibliography at the bottom):

1.1 [The text refers to itself as verbal entity (with implied or explicit boundaries). There is no evidence of the absence or presence of sub-points 1.1.1-4, as the text is incomplete.]

1.1.5 [Important text witnesses attest to a heading which is not integrated with the body of the text or with any introductory frame, implying one or more of the kinds of information under 1.1.1–4. There is no evidence of the absence or presence of any such heading, as the text is incomplete.]

1.7 The text’s Inventory profile should be seen in the light of the following further information on completeness, thematic progression, aesthetic effects, etc.: the part-text's incompleteness limits the analytical potential of the Inventory, many points of which require knowledge of the whole text. See 1.7 and 10.1 in the GenApocWhole entry.

2.1 The information conveyed in the text defines the perspective of the governing voice in the following way:

2.1.2 The governing voice thematizes how it comes to know the text’s contents or its right to command obedience from the text’s addressee. Its perspective is thereby presented as limited, referring either to evidence, or to personal experience (mere human knowledge): The governing voice of the Lamech part-text is presented as being tied to mere human knowledge.

2.2 A first-person voice imposes its perspective on all (or almost all) knowledge or norms conveyed in the text: The fragmentation of the text precludes stating with absolute certainty the identity of the governing voices in cols. 0-I. In these two columns both the first person singular and plural are used, but the extant text does not identify those voices explicitly. It is likely that the first person singular is Lamech's voice. The first person plural may be part of a long reported dialogue, rather than the voice of a first-person collective narrator. The first and last explicit identifications of Lamech as governing voice occur in II:3 and V:27.

2.2.1 [The first-person governing voice is identified by an anonymous voice through a proper name or unique description: The expression "copy of the book of the words of Noah", which introduces Noah as I-narrator, may suggest that a similar expression also introduced Lamech as I-narrator.]

2.2.1.1 [The anonymous voice presents the first-person utterance as a situation-unspecific “text”, not as uttered in a unique situation of the past.]

2.2.2 The first person voice identifies itself by name or uniquely identifying expression (once or repeatedly): This occurs frequently.

2.2.4 The number and gender of the first-person governing voice are as follows:

2.2.4.1 The first person singular is used.

2.2.4.2 [The first person plural is used. See 2.2.]

2.4 The governing voice defines a horizon of knowledge as shared with the projected addressee by taking for granted the following linguistic usages or references (in selection):

2.4.1 Persons or unique objects referred to by proper name or technical expression and not present in the book of Genesis:

2.4.1.1 for persons mentioned or presented in narrative usage; as characters; or topics, for example: Batenosh in II:3.

2.4.1.3 for Gods/mythical figures/supernatural beings, etc., for example: the name of God is mentioned about twelve times and all mentions are based on four basic epithets: קדישׁא (e.g. קדישׁא רבא in 0:18 and IV:12), מר (e.g. מרה עלמא in 0:24) and מלך (e.g. מלך שמיא in II:14) and עליא (e.g. II:4).

2.4.3 The text as a whole routinely employs the following language(s), knowledge of which is taken for granted: the language taken for granted is a very high-literary level Aramaic.

2.4.4 Special linguistic usages occur pervasively or prominently:

2.4.4.5 Other special linguistic usages: occasional loan words are found. For example, the word "met" in II:23 is an Akkadian loan word that means "land".

2.4.5 The meaning of some linguistic usage or reference is addressed explicitly, marking it as not being part of the shared horizon of knowledge: family relations are usually made explicit (e.g. "Batenosh, my wife" in II:3 (Batenosh is not mentioned in Genesis but is found in Jub. 4:28) or "Enoch, his father" in II:22).

4.3 The text presents several sets of internally complex episodes with no explicit or manifest causal or motivation nexus between them. Where characters are identical, or linked, they do not figure in one continuous set of events.

4.3.2 The episodes are linked by a common witness character who is peripheral to some or much of the action told, but through whose perceptions all or much of the narrative information is filtered.

4.9 There is prominent or sustained characterization of key figures in the narrative.

4.9.1 There is editorial comment on the qualities of a character from a third-person narrator: This applies to both Noah and Methuselah. See 4.9.3 and 4.9.4.

4.9.3 A figure is characterized by her or his moral or religious traits: Noah is described by Enoch as a light/flame (V:13).

4.9.3.2 Moral/religious traits are apparently not linked to the ethnicity and/or gender of the figure.

4.9.4 A figure is characterized by her or his intellectual gifts or understanding: In III:27, Methuselah is characterized as imbued with understanding: "and he [Enoch] gave to Methuselah his son understanding".

4.9.5 [A figure is characterized by physical prowess or beauty, or their opposites. In col. II Lamech is concerned about Noah's conception. The reason for this has not been preserved but, Fitzmyer (p. 123) remarks, "it was undoubtedly something like the details recorded in the account of the birth of Noah in 1 Enoch 106:2-3," where Noah is described as a beautiful child.]

4.11 Supernatural characters appear in the narrative, whether introduced casually, or accounted for elaborately: Lamech expresses concern about the possible supernatural origin of his son, and mentions the Watchers, the Holy Ones and the Nephilin.

4.13 The narrative pace is slowed down or changed by frequent or prominent quotation of speech, thought or text.

4.13.1 The quotation constitutes a plot-driving event in its own right.

4.13.1.2 The narrative action largely or partly consists of a report on (long) speeches exchanged between characters: In this part-text, most narrative information is provided by characters speaking in direct speech. Specifically, Lamech's dialogue with his wife Batenosh in II:3-18, and Enoch's long dialogue with Methuselah in cols. III-V, provide most of the narrative information in this part-text.

7.1 Narrative or thematic correspondences, or overlap of specific wording, occur between a non-biblical text and one or more biblical texts in a manner that is prominent or pervasive: There are correspondences between the Lamech part of the Genesis Apocryphon and Gen. 5:28-29 and 6:2-4. Due to the fragmentary nature of the text we do not know if these extended to other material of the book of Genesis prior to the birth of Noah in 5:28.

7.1.1 Characters correspond between the non-biblical narrative and the narrative of a biblical text or texts.

7.1.1.1 Some or all main characters of the text correspond to main characters in a biblical partner text: Main characters of the text (Lamech, Enoch, Noah) tend to correspond to main characters in the corresponding parts of the book of Genesis.

7.1.1.1.1 A main character shared with a biblical partner text is also the first-person narrator of the text: i.e. Lamech.

7.1.2 Chronology, physical setting or emplotment correspond between the non-biblical narrative and the narrative of a biblical text or texts:

7.1.2.1 The narrative’s chronological and spatial framework, as well as certain events, are co-extensive with that of a biblical partner text, or with some extended part of it. The overall chronological and spatial framework of the narrative is co-extensive with that of Genesis 5:28-29 and 6:2-4.

7.1.2.1.2 The narrative is told in more detail than that of a biblical partner text, or contains more components that slow down the narrative pace (4.6, 4.12 or 4.13): For example, cols. 0-I expand Gen. 6:2-4 and cols. II-V expand Gen. 5:28-29.

7.1.5 The projected persona of the governing voice of the text, whether a narrative or not, is also known from a biblical text, or the governing voice assumes an epistemic stance similar to that of a biblical text:

7.1.5.1 The projected first-person persona of the governing voice is also a character in a biblical text: i.e. Lamech.

7.1.5.1.1 The persona appears to be linked to a character as it specifically appears in the biblical text, not merely as it might be known from diffuse cultural knowledge: Compared to the Noah and Abram part-texts, the Lamech section is less closely related to the biblical account and admits in principle the possibility of not being linked to the character of the biblical text.

7.2 Narrative or thematic correspondences, or overlap of specific wording, occur between the non-biblical text under discussion and other non-biblical texts in a manner that is prominent or pervasive: There are overlaps between cols. II to V and 1Enoch 106-7. However, the text perspective is different, since 1Enoch has a third person perspective.

7.2.1 There is a correspondence of characters (which may include the persona projected as the governing voice of the current text): Enoch, Lamech, Methuselah and Noah are also found in 1Enoch 106.

7.2.1.1 This also constitutes a correspondence with a biblical text (7.1.1).

7.2.7 The projected first-person persona of the governing voice of the text, whether narrative or not, is also known from another non-biblical text: e.g. 1Enoch, Jubilees, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs and Pseudo-Philo.

7.2.7.1 The projected first-person persona is identical with a character in another non-biblical text: e.g. 1Enoch (e.g. 10:2), Jubilees (e.g. 4:28), Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (e.g. 7:4) and Pseudo-Philo (e.g. 1:20).

7.2.7.3 The 7.2.7. overlap also constitutes an overlap with a biblical text.

9.13 Physical evidence from antiquity potentially shows non-verbal signals indicating (an interpretation of) the text’s thematic division: The vacats seem to be placed in specific positions to articulate steps in the narrative (e.g. II:2) as well as to mark the separation of narrative levels (e.g. V:28). It should, however, be noted that the presence of a vacat may simply be due to imperfections in the parchment, forcing the scribe the leave a space.